web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: October 2020

Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors

Posted on October 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors on 22 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors | Leave a comment

Bharat Desai Editor of Times of India and Anr Vs State of Gujarat on 18 Apr 2012

Posted on October 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court held as follows:

From Para 35,

35. From the contents of the news items published in the Times of India on 30th and 31st May, 2008 in the context of which the above referred two first information reports have been lodged, it is apparent that there is nothing therein which would cause disaffection amongst the members of the police officers against the State Government established by law. The contention that the comments regarding the State Government having appointed a person with a criminal background like the second respondent would induce in the minds of the subordinate officers an impression that they should not obey him and thus, induce disloyalty, does not merit acceptance inasmuch as what is stated in the articles is only an expression of an opinion as regards the act of the Government in appointing the second respondent as Commissioner of Police. If the contention of the second respondent were to be accepted no adverse comment could be made as regards the appointment/promotion of any officer belonging to the police force, which cannot be the intention of the legislature while enacting the said provision. The test for the invoking the said provision would be whether the news items in question has the propensity of evoking amongst the members of the police force feelings of disaffection towards the Government established by law in India or the effect of inducing any member of the police force to withhold his service or to commit a breach of discipline. Besides, the news item has to be read from the stand point of a reasonable man. On a bare reading of the articles in question from the armchair of a reasonable person, the same can, in no manner, be said to have the effect of causing disaffection towards the Government nor can the same be said to have the likelihood of inducing any member of the police force to withhold the service or to commit a breach of discipline. A mere comment on the wisdom of the State Government in appointing the second respondent as Commissioner of Police in the context of his background, can in no manner induce a prudent member of the police force to withhold his service or commit a breach of discipline, nor can such comment have the effect of creating disaffection against the Government. The provisions of section 3 of the said Act would, therefore, not be attracted in the facts of the present cases.

And then in Para 36,

36. Another aspect of the matter is that a perusal of the allegations made in the first information reports shows that the contents of the sections invoked against the applicants have been mentioned therein so as to make out an offence under section 124A IPC and section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922. In this regard it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan and another (supra) wherein it has been held that mere reference to the expressions mentioned in the provision would not disclose commission of an offence, when the ingredients constituting the offence in question are conspicuously lacking. In the facts of the present case, merely
because in the first information reports, it has been stated that the articles in question have been published with the intention to cause hatred against senior police officers of the State Government established by law and that the same have been published as an attempt to cause contempt and hatred against the State Government, the same would not fall within the ambit of section 124A IPC or section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, when the ingredients for constitution of an offence under section 124A IPC and section 3 of the said Act are woefully lacking.

Bharat Desai Editor, Times of India and Anr Vs State of Gujarat on 18 Apr 2012

 

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Bharat Desai Editor of Times of India and Anr Vs State of Gujarat Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act Section 3 - Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Vijaya Rao Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 29 Jul 2005

Posted on October 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that, just by using the words/expressions used in statutes/provisions does not disclose any offence, when the necessary ingredients constituting Section 420 are conspicuously lacking in the complaint.

From Para 5,

5. Except using the expressions fraudulent misappropriation and mala fide intention, the allegations in the complaint do not at all disclose as to how the appellant can be found guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC. The ingredients constituting Section 420 are conspicuously lacking in the  complaint. All the courts have failed to address themselves to the crucial question whether as far as the appellant is concerned any offence under Section 420 or for that matter any offence under Section 409 has been committed. Even going by the allegations in the complaint, allowing the  criminal proceedings to go on against the appellant, would result in abuse of the process of the court. Hence, the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 10 of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar are quashed as against the appellant. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Vijaya Rao Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 29 Jul 2005

Citations : [2006 CCR 2 122], [2006 SLT 3 405], [2005 SCC 7 69], [2005 SCC CRI 1600]

Others Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea89ae607dba38b6e4923a

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Vijaya Rao Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr | Leave a comment

Litigation by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Posted on October 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya ji has launched a lot of Public Interest Litigation and since the entire collection is not available in a single place, the following is a curated list for interested folks.

 

Initiated between 1986-1990

 

Initiated between 1991-1995

 

 

 

Initiated between 1996-2000

 

Initiated between 2001-2005

 

 

Initiated between 2006-2010

 

Initiated between 2011-2015

 

 

Initiated between 2016-2020

  1. Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 699/2016 : Attacking the pending criminal cases against the elected representatives of people (MPs and MLAs) in various Courts of India and expedite and disposed them on war-footing.
  2. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 329/2019 : The Section 31 of the CrPC, which provides that a convict can serve varying jail terms simultaneously for several offences, should not be made applicable to the convicts in heinous cases under special laws such as “the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, and Fugitive Economic Offenders Act,.
  3. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6259/2019 : Seeking Union Government to implement 24th recommendation of National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Justice Venkatchaliah Commission) on Population Control; Two-child norm as a criteria for government jobs, aids and subsidies, and, may withdraw statutory rights viz. right to vote, right to contest, right to property, right to free shelter, right to free legal aid etc.;

Initiated between 2021-2025

  1. W.P.(C) No. 1334/2020: Regards to Election Reforms in India, i.e., Right to Reject all candidates in an election.

 

 

Initiated between 2021-2025

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Litigation by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Public Interest Litigation | Leave a comment

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Posted on October 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Vagua allegations don’t take fake cases far. Bombay HS quashed the fake case of 498A IPC against the relatively.

From Para 14,

14. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations, against every member of the family of the husband, implicating everybody under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least prima facie.

 

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 482 – FIR Quashed CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives IPC 498a - Not Made Out Against Parents or Relatives Legal Terrorism Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Rampyari and Ors Vs Ms Kamlesh on 09 Mar 2010

Posted on October 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji fined 25K INR to be paid to the Respondent, due to the delay tactics employed by Petitioner/her Advocate in dragging on the case…

Rampyari and Ors Vs Ms Kamlesh on 09 Mar 2010
Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Fine For Delay Tactics Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra Prevent Delays In Court Proceedings Rampyari and Ors Vs Ms Kamlesh | Leave a comment

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

Posted on October 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Since there was 1 judgment from a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court which said Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory u/s 340 CrPC, the 2-judge bench in this case, referred this point to a Larger bench.

From Para 14,

14. In any event, given that the decision of the three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra) did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate Bench in Pritish (supra) regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it necessary that the present matter be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration, particularly to answer the following questions:
(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court?
(ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?
15. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

This was answered by a three-judge bench as follows:

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 15 Sep 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

 


Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Perjury - Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Perjury Under 340 CrPC Referred to Large Bench State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh | Leave a comment

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Posted on October 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Citing Iqbal Marwah here and other landmark case laws, Supreme Court says,

From Para 10,

10. It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint. It is not necessary that the court must use the actual words of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. Observing that under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not on mere allegations or to vindicate personal vendetta,

From Para 11,

11. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of justice”. The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. It has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the present case whether any prima facie case is made out for forgery or making a forged document warranting issuance of directions for lodging the complaint under Section 193, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

From Para 19,

19. Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama is wrong, mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants.

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC 6 477], [2019 SCC CRI 2 826], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 664], [AIR 2019 SC 2280], [2019 (2) Crimes 279], [2019 (7) Scale 559], [2019 CriLJ 2896], [2019 CrLJ 2896], [2019 (3) JLJR 122], [2019 (3) PLJR 122]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150953328/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cd3c6064a932660042c22f2

https://caselaw.in/supreme-court/sasikala-pushpa-v-state-of-tamil-nadu/4295/


Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah and Anr Perjury Under 340 CrPC Reportable Judgement or Order Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu | Leave a comment

CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020

Posted on October 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Delhi High Court held this interesting point on discharge an accused.

71. In view of above facts discussed, the settled law is that if the prosecution witnesses presumed to be true, without any cross examination, still conviction cannot be awarded to the accused, then deserves for discharge, as the case in hand is.

CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

 


Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors CrPC 239 - Discharge | Leave a comment

Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Aug 2018

Posted on October 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held as follows:

11) In our opinion, when a party relies upon any evidence, whether it is oral or documentary, in support of his case, the Court/Committee/Authority, as the case may be, and especially the original Court is under an obligation to apply its mind to the entire documentary evidence on which the party has placed reliance for proving his case and record its reasoned findings whether accepting the evidence or rejecting it. What is important is the consideration of entire evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law while deciding the case.

 

Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors 10 Aug 2018

Citations : [2018 SCC 9 89], [2018 SCC L&S 2 572], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 882], [2018 AIR SC 3776]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35798783/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b6dc0919eff433a41935bfc

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/vilas-dinkar-bhat-versus-state-of-maharashtra-ors

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Reportable Judgement or Order Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
erbmjha BALA @erbmjha ·
14 Jul

Abhishek Manu Singhvi is defending the Emergency by highlighting its benefits.

Just imagine the level of brain rot...

Reply on Twitter 1944619816477954274 Retweet on Twitter 1944619816477954274 1017 Like on Twitter 1944619816477954274 2994 X 1944619816477954274
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
papitrumpo il Donaldo Trumpo @papitrumpo ·
21h

THAT EXPLAINS IT!!!😂😂😂

Reply on Twitter 1944897330622193903 Retweet on Twitter 1944897330622193903 1361 Like on Twitter 1944897330622193903 4955 X 1944897330622193903
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
14 Jul

చాలా వివరంగా అమరావతి పనులు గురించి చెప్పారు...👏

@YSRCParty మీలాంటి వారి కోసమే ఈ వీడియో... చిల్లర వెధవలందరికీ ఈ వీడియో పంపించండి 💪
#Amaravathi
#Amaravati
#Andhrapradesh
#IdhiManchiPrabhutvam

Reply on Twitter 1944599370617495946 Retweet on Twitter 1944599370617495946 32 Like on Twitter 1944599370617495946 156 X 1944599370617495946
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
indiantechguide Indian Tech & Infra @indiantechguide ·
14 Jul

🚨 India has welcomed 36 Indian-origin scientists to do R&D in India under Vaibhav scheme. (GoI)

Reply on Twitter 1944721734935929034 Retweet on Twitter 1944721734935929034 1571 Like on Twitter 1944721734935929034 15533 X 1944721734935929034
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ekta Kapur Vs Kunal Kapur on 21 May 2025 July 15, 2025
  • Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020 July 14, 2025
  • Evidence Act Sec 65 – Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given July 14, 2025
  • State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025 July 14, 2025
  • Dowry Prohibition Officers of Andhra Pradesh working? July 13, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (3,012 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,446 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (2,381 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,801 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,690 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,396 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,180 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (1,031 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (967 views)
  • Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 (847 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (405)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (376)Landmark Case (370)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (296)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (275)Work-In-Progress Article (216)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (61)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (44)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (719)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (320)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (180)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (107)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (43)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (36)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • July 2025 (6)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • BCN (Barcelona) on 2025-07-22 July 22, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 22, 01:00 - 04:00 UTCJul 10, 15:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BCN (Barcelona) datacenter on 2025-07-22 between 01:00 and 04:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • UIO (Quito) on 2025-07-21 July 21, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 21, 12:30 UTC  -  Jul 22, 01:00 UTCJul 15, 16:33 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in UIO (Quito) datacenter between 2025-07-21 12:30 and 2025-07-22 01:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance […]
  • CGB (Cuiaba) on 2025-07-17 July 17, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 17, 08:45 - 12:45 UTCJul 14, 16:33 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in CGB (Cuiaba) datacenter on 2025-07-17 between 08:45 and 12:45 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 5.83.0.164 | S July 15, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 41 | First: 2023-12-14 | Last: 2025-07-15
  • 177.136.201.13 | SD July 15, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 137 | First: 2025-02-14 | Last: 2025-07-15
  • 41.193.248.83 | S July 15, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 16 | First: 2025-07-15 | Last: 2025-07-15
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1570 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel